Attorneys Joseph Evanns and Egon
Mittelmann reviewed a letter [PDF]
(extremely
laudatory) from La Sotomayor`s former clerks to
Senate leaders in favor of her confirmation. They
commented:

"[O]f the 45
signatory names appearing, only three surnames, or
6.23%, are even arguably `Latina/Latino.`

“Of the remaining
42 surnames, 22 appear to be Jewish, four to five appear
to be Asian,14 or 15 appear
to be non-Jewish and non-`Latina.` "[Judge
Sotomayor`s Latina Hiring Wisdom, June 11, 2009]

Latin Americans do seem to be under-represented among
La Sotomayor`s clerks. Which strongly suggest that in
the recesses of her own heart, La Sotomayor knows thatmost"Latinas"—maybe
including herself—really are not up to the headwork
of being a Second Circuit judge`s clerk.

¡Que
lástima!—for them.

Good catch—and an interesting and damaging column
overall. As Evanns and Mittelmann say:“[T]he nominee
appears to subscribe to the liberal rule of law applying
differently to the ruling elite and the non-elite ruled,
believing in `do as I say, not as I do`.”

Nevertheless, there is another conclusion one can
draw from the data, one that Evanns and Mittelmann do
not mention.

Looking at the data another way, of the 45
signatories, seven or eight appear to be obvious
protected minorities (Latin American and Asian) while 36 or 37 appear to be some
variety of white.

Of those
36 or 37
former clerks, it is very likely that several are in
fact black, something not always obvious from surnames.
Still, let`s assume that all of the people Evanns and
Mittlemann tag as
"non-Jewish and non-`Latina`" are actually white
Americans—a best-case guess for the
white guys, which I`m willing to bet is a material
overcount. The disparity that jumps out: among those
36 or 37“possibly-whites”, 14 or 15 might conceivably be
white, non-Jewish Americans—while a full 22 appear to be
Jewish.

The Census Bureau`s
2008 estimate of the ethnic composition of the
population of the United States in 2010 (not all
actually Americans, to be sure) puts the"Not Hispanic" white percentage of the population at 65% (a
disastrous percentage decrease over recent decades that
the Census happily predicts will only continue)"Hispanics",
however the feds define that, are at 16%; and blacks are
at 13%—bad news indeed for black Americans, and a
role-reversal just within this decade.

Since several of the
14 or 15 possibly-white non-Jewish clerks
are very likely black, white Americans are probably
under-represented in percentage terms among La
Sotomayor`s clerks.

Let`s dig a little deeper. The Census does not
separate Jews as a subset among whites, but reasonable
estimates put the Jewish percentage of the U.S.
population at approximately 2%. One should note,
however, that, with essentially unrestricted Jewish
immigration from the now-defunct Soviet Union and other
Warsaw Pact countries from when the
Jackson-Vanik Amendment became law in 1975 through
the Soviet collapse in 1991 and from Russia and
elsewhere in Eastern Europe ever since—curiously,
Jackson-Vanik remains law even though the
Evil Empire is no more—plus from Israel since her
independence in 1948,by
no means are all Jews in the United States in fact
Americans.

But even counting all of the 15 questionables as
non-Jewish whites—very unlikely, see above—Jews appear
to make up a minimum of 60% of La Sotomayor`swhite
clerks, and nearly half overall.

So, yes, there certainly is a glaring double standard
at work in Sonia Sotomayor`s selection of law clerks. It
matches precisely the double standard applied to choose
who among America`s qualified white applicants will be
permitted to attend the law schools from which La
Sotomayor no doubt picks her clerks.
Yale,
Harvard and
Columbia—all universities originally
founded by
Colonial English-stock Americans to propagate the
Christian religion—head the list. All operate
effective quota systems to ensure that enough
minorities get in. But some white Americans, apparently,
are more equal than
others.

So I salute Evanns and Mittelmann for calling out
Sonia Sotomayor for her hypocrisy and double standards

But also I must call them out too, for sitting on a
more important story. A real case of
double standards and dispossession is staring them
in the face. Apparently, they cannot bring themselves to
mention it.

It might be instructive to ponder why that is so—and
to ask what those dispossessed Americans, while they
remain a majority, should do about their plight.

We may be absolutely sure that, when they do try to
do anything about it, all the
anti-discrimination bureaucracy of"their"
federal government will close ranks against them.